European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Murray & Ors v the United Kingdom - 18731/91 [2010] ECHR 1890 (15 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1890.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1890

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)120^¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

in John Murray against the United Kingdom and 4 other cases

concerning the right to silence, the right not to incriminate oneself

and the denial of access to legal advice in the first 24 to 48 hours of detention

Quinn, application no. 23496/94, Interim Resolution DH(98)214;

Kevin Murray, application no. 22384/93, Interim Resolution DH(98)156;

Magee, application no. 28135/95, judgment of 6 June 2000, final on 6 September 2000;

John Murray, application no. 18731/91, judgment of 8 February 1996; and

Averill, application no. 36408/97, judgment of 6 June 2000, final on 6 September 2000

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to its decisions of 11 June 1998^² and 10 July 1998^³ under former Article 32 of the Convention in the Kevin Murray and Quinn cases respectively and to the judgments in the Magee, John Murray and Averill cases transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that these cases concern the right to silence, the right not to incriminate oneself and the denial of access to legal advice during the first 48 hours of detention (24 hours in the Averill case), in combination with the provisions in national law whereby the choice of the accused to remain silent could result in a court’s or a jury’s drawing unfavourable conclusions (Article 6, paragraph 3c alone or combined with Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)120

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment

in the cases of John Murray against the United Kingdom and 4 other cases concerning the right to silence, the right not to incriminate oneself and the denial of access to legal advice in the first 24 to 48 hours of detention

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the right to silence, the right not to incriminate oneself and the denial of access to legal advice during the first 48 hours of detention (24 hours in the Averill case), in combination with the provisions in national law whereby the choice of the accused to remain silent could result in a court’s or a jury’s drawing unfavourable conclusions (violations of Article 6§3c alone or combined with Article 6§1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
Quinn, Application no. 23496/94	--	500 GBP	7 500 GBP	8 000 GBP
Paid on 01/03/2000
Kevin Murray, Application no. 22384/93	--	500 GBP	3 000 GBP	3 500 GBP
Paid on 16/10/2000
Magee, Application no. 28135/95	--	--	10 000 GBP	9 598.43 GBP
Paid on 05/12/2000
John Murray, Application no. 18731/91	--	--	15 000 GBP	10 130.35 GBP
Paid within the time-limit
Averill, Application no. 36408/97	--	--	5 000 GBP	5 000 GBP
Paid on 05/12/2000

b) Individual measures

In the Magee, Averill and the John Murray cases, the European Court held that the finding of a violation of the Convention in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction. In the Kevin Murray and Quinn cases, the applicants were awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

In the Quinn, Averill, John Murray and Kevin Murray cases, no violation was found of Article 6, paragraph 1, with respect to the courts’ drawing adverse inferences from the silence of the accused, given the safeguards in place and the weight of the evidence in each case.

In the Magee case, the European Court found a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 3(c) in that the applicant was denied access to a solicitor. The incriminating statements made by the applicant within the first 24 hours of detention prior to being granted access to a solicitor became the central platform of the prosecution’s case. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. Referring to the judgment of the European Court, the Court of Appeal quashed the applicant’s conviction on 06/04/2001.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

A number of interim measures were taken by the United Kingdom before the adoption of the legislative measures set out below. These included:

i) guidance to police officers to ensure that suspects have legal advice before being questioned;

ii) guidance to prosecutors not to rely on inferences drawn from defendants’ silence where no legal adviser was present and to inform any court intending to rely on such silence of the John Murray judgment.

In England and Wales, Section 58 (on non-permissible inferences from silence of suspects prior to access to legal advice) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, came into force on 01/04/2003 (under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Commencement Order 2003); SI 2003 No. 707 (C.33)). Section 58 sets out that provisions of a previous law (sections 34 and 36-8 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) permitting a court to draw inferences from the silence of an accused do not apply where the accused was at an authorised place of detention and where the accused did not have prior access to legal advice. The Code of Practice covering the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers (revised Code C), which enabled the implementation of Section 58, came into force on 01/04/2003.

In Northern Ireland, the relevant provision (Article 36, on non-permissible inferences from silence of suspects prior to access to legal advice) of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 came into force on 01/03/2007. Article 36 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 mirrors Section 58 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

2 Interim Resolution ResDH(1998)156.

3 Interim Resolution ResDH(1998)214.